Stryker Agrees to $1 Billion Settlement With Hip Patients

In an effort to avoid thousands of trials over its defective hip implants, Stryker recently agreed to pay at least $1.43 billion to patients implanted with the metal-on-metal devices. This agreement was the result of an unusual “bellwether mediation” meetings, which involved negotiations between plaintiffs and Stryker.Metal on metal hip implantlawyers at Pintas & Mullins Law Firm detail this settlement and who is eligible to take part.

The bellwether mediation between Stryker and patients harmed by its hip implants has been ongoing for over a year. This billion-dollar settlement will resolve about 4,000 lawsuits filed by patients who needed to have revision surgeries after their Stryker hip implants failed prematurely. The Stryker implants at the center of these cases are the Rejuvenate and ABG II modular neck stems.

Generally speaking, according to the settlement, each Stryker patient who had to undergo a revision surgery will receive an average of $300,000. Both of these hip implants were recalled in 2012 after mounting evidence of their defects. Metal-on-metal hip implants were only recently introduced to markets and marketed to younger, more active patients as better alternatives to traditional implants. In reality, the implants have proven to fail early, cause immense pain, shed metal debris into the body, and require corrective surgeries.

Stryker is just one of the companies that sold these defective metal-on-metal devices. Johnson & Johnson, the world’s largest health-care product seller, recently agreed to a similar settlement of at least $2.5 billion. This settlement will compensate patients implanted with the company’sASR hips.

Unlike Johnson & Johnson, Stryker agreed to this settlement before any of the lawsuits went to trial.Experts believethat Stryker purposefully chose to settle the cases in mediation to avoid an even larger financial loss. J&J lost millions of dollars in its initial trials regarding the ASR metal-on-metal systems; the company then decided to a multi-billion dollar settlement, though it is still facing thousands of cases for the ASR device and another metal-on-metal hip, the Pinnacle.

Other companies that sold metal-on-metal hips are: Wright Medical, Biomet, Zimmer, and Smith & Nephew. Anyone who was implanted with a metal-on-metal hip, regardless of the manufacturer, may be entitled to compensation from the manufacturer. These companies sold devices that they were inherently dangerous and defective, injuring patients who were already vulnerable to infection.

Revision surgeries, particularly in the elderly, can be extraordinarily painful, risky, and expensive. This is the reason why hip devices that fail early and in extremely high rates are so dangerous and require such extensive litigation. A clear message needs to be sent to these manufacturers to ensure that they never let a situation like this occur again.

Large medical device corporations are often accused to placing profits over patients, and manipulating the public into believing their devices are safe and effective when they actually carry very dangerous risks. Some devices even cause premature death. Lawsuits against these manufacturers not only ensure that patients have their medical bills covered, but protect future patients from being victimized by malicious business practices. Litigation incentivizes companies like Stryker to prioritize patients over their profits.

Stryker hip implant lawyers at Pintas & Mullins Law Firm are currently representing many patients injured by these hip devices. If you or someone you love received a metal-on-metal hip, contact our firm immediately. We always provide free legal consultations to potential clients in all 50 states.

Pope Francis’ recent summit on sexual abuse ended in much the same way as it began: offering reasons for hope and promising change, but failing to outline concrete policies for dealing with the issue. …

Archives

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.